NationStates Jolt Archive

Passport harmonisation
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.


Category: The Furtherment of Democracy Strength: Significant Proposed by: Stormymilkshake
Description: As the peoples of the world learn more of other nations the urge to travel and broaden cultural horizons has naturally increased. Border formalities are hampered customs officials finding themselves increasingly baffled by the variety of personal identification each nation requires. A UN standardisation initiative would see world citizens issued with documentation which presents personal information in a single format, easing stress and delays at Customs and Immigration facilities. Tourism generates significant revenues alongside the cutural benefits and UN intervention would stimulate growth in this area of each nation's economy.

Each nation would be able to present its travel documentation in a manner and design which reflects its own culture and traditions as long as it contained the standard information.

Does anyone have any arguments for or against this proposal that they would like to share?

We think it's unnecessary, non-specific as to what constitutes "standard information", and far too flowery. Honestly, what does a passport need beyond your name, country, and picture? Let the nations decide if they require 'favorite color' or 'shoe size' in the information section.

If you don't have your name, country of origin, and a photo, Frisbeeteria will turn you back at the border. Do that enough times and the offending nation will correct that minor problem so their people can travel and trade. It's self-correcting.

Oh yeah, we voted our Delegate votes AGAINST.

The democratic states of Hirota have voted in support of this measure, simply because we fail to see any negatives to approving this pending resolution.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

The democratic states of Hirota have voted in support of this measure, simply because we fail to see any negatives to approving this pending resolution.
And thus will the sheep vote.


Don't pass laws because you don't see the negatives - vote because the positives are compelling. If there is no pressing need for this resolution, why vote to pass it? Explain this to me, Hirota.

Issuing formal identity papers to all of the world citizens smacks of Big Brother. I can see the appeal for easing border congestion, but what happens if this technology falls into the wrong hands? Could a Government that is not so liberal in its views use the information provided to persecute its own citizens, and those of visiting nations. I do not see this proposal as a good idea.

Illaria simply doesnt know what seems to be lacking from passports... We suppose that it should be useful to have standards...

Standardization isnt necessarily a big brother approach here though... and this is within the realm of UN jurisdiction...

*still undecided*

Isn't possible "said terrorist" could use these universal Passports to acquire planes and crash them into your tallest buildings?
(It happened in real life so its not immpossible; and the FBI knew the passports were fakes...just got lazy.
If they are using legal ones no one will know...)
I say no!

maybe the standardisation isn't a big brother issue itself. What sort of information would be required in these passports to satisfy all member nations, and what could some nations do with that information?

Well, we are curious to see what information was to be presented on this "standard" passport. Our customs officals would have an easier time working out who is who, which we would hope would cut down on criminal movements over national borders, and make it easier for the majority to travel over national borders.

We doubt any nation which has passport controls will have "shoe size" for example on their own passports, and we can see the benefits of some data being included (including, but not neccessarily restricted to, pending additional suggestions: name, age, nation of origin, blood type, a photo, and also contact details for next of kin).

We have already contacted the nation responsible for this proposed resolution for clarification on what exactly this standardisation will involve, and will consider changing our vote if we are concerned as to the reply. We are also going to continue to monitor the discussions amongst member states for any potential issues raised.

We thank the Frisbeeterian representitive for their concern, but point out that our vote is not presently set in stone, and are well within our rights to change it as we see fit.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

Isn't possible "said terrorist" could use these universal Passports to acquire planes and crash them into your tallest buildings?
(It happened in real life so its not immpossible; and the FBI knew the passports were fakes...just got lazy.
If they are using legal ones no one will know...)
I say no!

The passport information is what is being standardized. They still list country of origin and citizenship.

The present system works. It may take time but it works.
La Extora votes against.

My problem with it is that it is furthering democracy. What does harmonising passports have to do with furthering democracy?

We have already contacted the nation responsible for this proposed resolution for clarification on what exactly this standardisation will involve.

We thank the Frisbeeterian representitive for their concern, but point out that our vote is not presently set in stone, and are well within our rights to change it as we see fit.
My point is that we shouldn't HAVE to contact the author. It should have been there all along. The author won't be handy every time some border guard needs to check a passport - it should be in the written and posted rules.

Hirota, we're not taking you to task for voting for the resolution. We're asking the philosophical questions of "Why vote when there are no negatives? Why not wait for positives? Why is unnecessary fluff worth making the laws of all the UN lands?"

Give us an answer on those lines, if you would.

world harmony? What would you put it under?

This resolution is supposed to further democracy, and passport standrds don't do that. This we have a conflict between the supposed effects of the resolution and the actual effects on countries.
DICTARSHIPS CAN HAVE STARDARD PASSPORTS, JUST LIKE DEMOCRACIES :!:
The Delegate of The Disputed Territories of Germany and Francewill vote against this proposal.

Why vote when there are no negatives? Why not wait for positives?

The Democratic states of Hirota have already outlined what we consider to be advantages. We did not (and still do not) perceive any significant problems with the proposal.

Why is unnecessary fluff worth making the laws of all the UN lands?

We politely suggest you ask the delegates who approved the proposal rather than the Democratic States of Hirota, a nation which lacks the influence to determine which proposals are approved. We agree that this resolution seems irrelevant, and we would not have approved this in proposal form (primarily because it seems irrelevant, primarily because the description does not match the category). But agree to the perceived benefits, as we see them, and consider this form of legislation well within the UN mandate.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

The Dark Arts Academy has agreed to support this oposition simply because if everything was standardized, customs would be quicker. One thing that we are optimistic on however, is the possibility of forgory of these documents. Steps would have to be taken to ensure the security of each nation.

After readin the proposal several times, I am still unclear as to what is being proposed. A new kind on internationally standadised passport? A different kind of documentation? Will these replace current passports? Will they need to be carried at all times? What information will they contain?

And surely nations being able to "present its travel documentation in a manner and design which reflects its own culture and traditions" would defeat the object, as they would still look different. Isn't the point in standardisation that everthing ends up the same, or very similar?

As this proposal is unclear, Nibbleton's vote and delegated votes will be placed AGAINST.

Yngwie Malmsteen,
Nibbleton UN Ambassador

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint is again (read continuously) stunned at the number of nations that seem to just vote FOR any proposal that comes along. Looking at the next two proposals in the queue that have reached quorum has caused my blood pressure to rise significantly as well. It makes us wonder if a majority of the U.N. Delegates can actually read.

Beyond all that, we find this proposal serves no purpose. The large number of international travelers from non-UN member nations far outstrips those from UN member nations, so the whole idea of 'standarizing' passports seems ridiculous, in light of some contradictory and unclear verbage in the text of this proposal.

With all due respect to our colleague from Hirota, to vote FOR something because you don't see a reason to vote AGAINST it is not the proper way to look at such issues.

We will not vote for ANY resolution unless we see that the international community is helped by it. This resolution does not help in any way that we can fathom, so we will (and have) voted against it.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

Catholic Europe does not support this proposal. We feel that in the current world climate border controls need to be kept, perhaps even strenghened, rather than not existing at all.

Why try and correct something that does not need correcting.

With all due respect to our colleague from Hirota, to vote FOR something because you don't see a reason to vote AGAINST it is not the proper way to look at such issues.

<sigh>

We did not vote for it simply because it had no negatives. We voted for it because we saw the potential benefits. Even if the Democratic states of Hirota perceived no negatives, we would not be so foolish to vote on something purely because of that, and we are beginning to become increasingly perturbed by member states who have not already seen the previous comment asserting this… :roll:

It makes us wonder if a majority of the U.N. Delegates can actually read.

Agreed, but it is the fault of member states that the delegates enjoy their position of power. If your delegate endorsed the proposal, withdraw your support.

And surely nations being able to "present its travel documentation in a manner and design which reflects its own culture and traditions" would defeat the object, as they would still look different. Isn't the point in standardisation that everthing ends up the same, or very similar?

OOC: The EU has standardised passports yet enjoy differences between them, so this is not as irrational as you seem to think.

Further additions to what we would include on a passport:
A digitally printed facial image of the holder (instead of a glued in photograph) is used.
The holder's signature is digitally captured onto the passport.
The personal identification page is protected by a clear laminate which incorporates a transparent optically variable device which protects the portrait.
The identification page is further protected by a series of laser perforations.
Both inner surfaces of the front and back cover use intaglio printing. The resultant ridged profile is detectable by the fingertips.

These features are intended to prevent photo substitution, page splitting, and other attempts at counterfeiting, and forgery.

We agree that this proposal lacks substance, and the Hirota are making efforts (as above) to suggest practical improvements.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

The Rogue Nation of Greenspoint is again (read continuously) stunned at the number of nations that seem to just vote FOR any proposal that comes along. Looking at the next two proposals in the queue that have reached quorum has caused my blood pressure to rise significantly as well. It makes us wonder if a majority of the U.N. Delegates can actually read.

Beyond all that, we find this proposal serves no purpose. The large number of international travelers from non-UN member nations far outstrips those from UN member nations, so the whole idea of 'standarizing' passports seems ridiculous, in light of some contradictory and unclear verbage in the text of this proposal.

With all due respect to our colleague from Hirota, to vote FOR something because you don't see a reason to vote AGAINST it is not the proper way to look at such issues.

We will not vote for ANY resolution unless we see that the international community is helped by it. This resolution does not help in any way that we can fathom, so we will (and have) voted against it.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

S&J agrees with this wholeheartedly. We will always vote against proposals which are poorly or vaguely written, which contravene national sovereignty, or which do not appear to be pressing or necessary. The current proposal meets at least two of these criteria.

We agree that this proposal lacks substance, and the Hirota are making efforts (as above) to suggest practical improvements.
Again, it's you who are missing the point, Hirota.

It's too late for practical improvements. The author of this proposal didn't post to the forums seeking input, nor has he been in evidence since it reached quorum. This will pass because the majority of NS nations will simply click Yes out of habit.

All of your definitions of what ought to be in a passport are excellent. We agree with them. Thing is, they should have been in the document BEFORE it was posted. Those of us who've been here a few months (or a LOT of months) are constantly exasperated by having the same old comments being made AFTER the fact.

It's my opinon that this issue reached quorum simply because it was on the same page as the excellent Fair Trial proposal, which is next in queue. Had the moderators actually looked at the disagreement between the text and the coding, it would have been deleted. The reason I suspect Enodia didn't delete it is that none of us thought it had a remote chance of reaching quorum, and didn't bother with the Getting Help page to report it. (and of course, the fact that mods suffer from the same lag we do, and simply can't devote the hours necessary to sweep all the trash away)

world harmony? What would you put it under?

Free trade, sister, or we would have considered this a 'slight' democratic effect. The bill itself is useless phlegm, accomplishing very little. It might speed up customs slightly, but is in reality simply unecessary paperwork on our parts. We vote against worthless and unecessary bureaucracy and wonder why it was necessary to push this bill through to the floor in the first place.

(Out of character: Free trade would have been much more appropriate and significant is still FAR too strong for such minor legislation. It's like someone is trying to make the world democratic mechanically while doing nothing realistically. A tad insulting, if you ask me.)

I am very dubious indeed of this proposal. For one thing, I can forsee an absolute bureacratic nightmare - who decides what standard information to put on the documents? I can see months of protracted, costly negotiations.

But this isn't the main point. I am concerned as to the precedent this sets. It is Big Brother - I imagine there would be a database to accompany this - imagine a database with the details of every single citizen in the world. Not good.

Would it kill people to spellcheck proposals?

It is Big Brother - I imagine there would be a database to accompany this - imagine a database with the details of every single citizen in the world. Not good.
I'm not fond of this proposal, but I fail to see where you get this. The proposal is calling for standards of what goes on a passport, not for a shared database of all passport information. It's not a national or international identity card, and there is no requirement for anyone to OWN a passport unless they want to leave their native country.

Frisbeeterians are a happy people. Probably less than 1% of our population have or need passports, and they don't need them internally. Foreign visitors need them to get in to our country, and from there our Corporate Security teams may set whatever rules they desire for each of our Corporate States. Some may have a security man at each elbow, others may allow free and unfettered access to everything. In Frisbeeteria, that's a state issue, not national.

Passports are merely a way for citizens of one nation to be permitted entry into another nation. What you do with that information is your own problem.

MJ Donovan, CEO, Frisbeeteria.

The Republic of Bonnie Blue Alabama does not see the positive benefits of adding yet another layer of bureaucracy on National Governments. The UN is powerful enough without haveing a world wide database of the worlds citizenry at its fingertips.

Voting No.

Would it kill people to spellcheck proposals?

Oh, if only...

I'm sorry, this proposal has too many spelling errors...

ZAP!!!

<insert evil giggle here>

As for the proposal itself, I agree that it's far too vague to be of any use. If the author had provided some examples of what constitutes "standard information," I may have seen fit to approve it. (Sending me a few cases of vodka would have also helped.) As it is, this is yet another piece of useless legislation that has no business in the UN. The author should be spanked for submitting it, and all of the delegates who endorsed it should be subjected to painful quantities of Ethel Merman.

~Helen A Handbasket
Senior Associate Vice Princess in Charge of Skimpy Lingerie
The Rogue Nation of Lillibit

My nation strongly disagrees with passport harmonization. There are many negatives to this idea. The main one for my nation is we are not democratic so why would we want to help spread Democracy? We do not force our ideals on other nations, why should the idea of democracy be forced on us. My people are happy being told what to do and how to do it. My cabinet and I would like to keep as much outside influences and ideas out of our nation as possible. Not that we are opposed to trade with and/or touring our great nation, but we would like to control who/what we allow to cross our borders. We can keep our enemies out and allow our allies in.

so what i gather from this resolution is you want to standardize passports for UN nations to prevent fraud. I have 2 problems with this, one it isnt going to prevent fraud if someone wants to use a fake they will use a fake from a non-UN nation. Also it hinders each countries ability to prove themselves unique and feel like an individual country. we joined the UN not to become one giant overbearing nation. the serene republic of mjsmithz enjoys its independance and unique aspects and will not vote for this initative

"A resolution to increase democratic freedoms. " are you kidding?
How does centralising the format, content, and collection of personal information and data increase my democratic freedoms?

I can just see it. The next time I take a flight, I'll have to show some kind of UN-approved passport or be thrown off the black helicopter in mid-flight.

No thank you. No wonder I've not joined the UN - it's a loony bin!

Free trade, sister, or we would have considered this a 'slight' democratic effect.

OOC: Illaria = Guy :P

Diplomate Jacob, Delegate from Renistan takes the floor:

While the people of Renistan in principle agree with the concept of passport harmonization we have decided to vote against the proposal on the floor because it is unclear how this proposal will be administrated. What agency will oversee this process? How will compliance be enforced? And perhaps most importantly what specific information will be collected?

If these questions are answered to our satisfaction or if a revised proposal is put before the UN, we will support this proposal, but untill then we must vote no.

I'm wondering what people smoke before they post... I've seen a lot of belony about this proposal and I'm very curious how these people made up all those weird stuff about a simple issue like passport harmonization.

First I don't see what Big Brother has to do with this. The proposal doesn't say that everyone has to be in one big database. It merely states that passports need a single format. The situation now is that every country can make up it's own passport. They generally look the same, but there are important differences. Not just personal information, which is generally the same, but the anti-fraud characteristics are different. This makes it very different for the people at the border to see quickly if the passport is a fake. There are computer systems available, but it just takes too long. If the passports carry similar anti-fraud marks, it would be much simpler.

And I don't see any connection between passports, terrorists and national souvereignity. Every country can have their national flag or symbol on the front, but inside it's the standard information about the citizen. When we can't agree on something like that, we might as well blow up the whole planet. Really...it's a bloody passport, not your national anthem. Think cooperatively please.

What more information would nations need? This point has been made numerous times already. Current immigration laws satisfy the international community today. Why should the UN dictate what is to be on passports already? What more is needed? All they need is Name, Phone Number, Address, Country of origin, picture, etc. Nothing more. All these and more are in fact already in people passports. Having the UN formalize this is nothing more than a waste of time, money and resources. I say nay on this measure.

So we're all going to have the same data on our passports, eh? Do we know what data we're all going to have? No? What the heck? This resolution is basically stating that we're all forced to agree without stating what we're all agreeing on.

Please, Eveybody wether you've voted for, against, or are still undecided, read this thread: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=121543 Santin has a very good point

My problem with it is that it is furthering democracy. What does harmonising passports have to do with furthering democracy?

Well ... maybe if we have guarantees that passport info will have reliable standard info, it will make it easier to travel, and that will encourage the spread of information and ideas with those travellers. This will include travellers spreading stories of the good things, like freedoms, in their home nations, creating more motivation for people everywhere to seek more freedoms, which will further democracy?

Oh! Also, we of the Grand Atoll are tentatively in favor of this resolution because it will improve the universal utility of passports for people travelling abroad, while allowing each nation to retain its distinctives.

Respectfully submitted by
Holly Deepwater,
Apprentice Delegate,
Grand Atoll mission to the UN

This falls more into the nitpicked category, though, we'd say because international standards are decided internationally and are not subject to minor "sweeping under the rug". The standards are just that, standards, not intended to compromise national security or anything else.

The democratic states of Hirota suspects several nations have overreacted to the significance of this proposal - it has already been said this is relatively unimportant.

The author of this proposal didn't post to the forums seeking input

We tend to think that seeking input on the forum not only makes proposals stronger, but also increases their profile on the international stage...so we personally cannot understand why member states don't post proposals for consultation more often... :?:

Really...it's a bloody passport, not your national anthem. Think cooperatively please.
Agreed for the reasons we commented on above.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

The problems that we encounter at Tragomaschalia's passport control points are less about content - most nations seem to be sensible about supplying necessary identifying information - than about format. No internationally accepted format for the presentation of individual identification yet exists.

While Tragomaschalia may not yet be so forward or technophile as to propose a format suitable for machine reading, we would certainly prefer that passport information be presented in a transparent, harmonious and international fashion. It would be invidious to name names, but certain nations are notorious among our passport officers for such matters as: supplying information solely in their unique alphabet or script, which causes delays in translation; use of materials prohibited to the touch of certain religious groups; insistence that certain individuals, when photographed, must be veiled or have their appearance modified in other ways; and many other impediments to ready identification and the free flow of people from one nation to another. Current figures indicate that our costs attributable to such problems amount to no less than 183,500 staters per annum, and we have as yet a relatively small flow of people across our borders. How much greater must the corresponding costs be for nations with a larger tourist trade, or with more international business travel?

We would prefer that the proposer and seconders withdraw this potentially valuable motion for further consideration and refinement before resubmitting it. Failing this, we would ask that UN members consider drawing up a proposal to address the issues that we have raised here today.

Well, I got a reply from the proposer.....I am adding it here as it clarifies the proposal

Greetings from the PRo Stormymilkshake!

Our customs and immigration officials, whilst noted for their generally friendly nature, reported that they found difficulty in identifying the following information on passports from other nations:

The name of the citizen and his/her country of residence.
Information as to height, eye colour and "distinguishing marks".
Diplomatic or other status.

Additional information could be suggested by the UN however we would not support any moves to add information such as religion/sexuality etc. which some states may use to oppress individuals.

Our proposal would see such information presented in a single language on the first or last page of travel documentation - as English is the language of business in the UN this would seem logical - and this would speed up formalities when visiting other nations, hopefully encouraging tourism between nations.

We hope this clarifies our position, but please contact our government again should you wish to ask any more questions.

May the Oohmagoolie Bird smile upon you
Mrs Ada PLentymen
Minister of foreign affairs

_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

Our government floated this, our first proposal, in the interests of easing travel between nations - nations suspicious of foreign nationals would benefit as well from increased clarity.

It is right and proper that each nation express itself as it sees fit - if this means a bright green passport with pages made of leather then we welcome this - it makes airports and seaports more colourful places after all. What we want to avoid is the colourful language and stress that all too often erupts as traveller and official try to make sense of the bright green passport with leather pages that communicates information using only pictures of Britney Spears in various poses. Or however each nation does it...

What we would like to see is some basic information as to the individual's name, nationality and diplomatic (or other) status presented in a common language and in a standard script. This would be in addition to whatever information any nation wishes to add to their passports, be they green, purple or made of silver.

It may not be the most funky or eye-catching of resolutions, but our government felt strongly enough to make it the basis of our first move onto the international stage. We joined the UN to increase our cultural awareness of the world at large, and wish to make this easier for all.

We urge support for this resolution - it will make only a small impact on the day-to-day running of our nations but will increase the mobility and happiness of our peoples.

Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mrs Ada Plentymen

In all honestly Ladies and Gentlemen, what right has the UN to interfere with the presentation of passports in member countries. We do not RUN these countries and who are we to force such restrictions. Let the local regional unions deal with this sort of thing.
The UNs purpose is to protect the weak and defend human rights not to govern over passport presentation. This is beyond our jurisdiction and could lead to other misuses of power.
While I agree that passport harmonisation is a good idea, I think that the UN is out of bounds here in trying to apply its power to what amounts to a soveirgn independant decision for each country. The awkward presentation of passport information is not a human rights issue. It does not adversely effect people.

In all honestly Ladies and Gentlemen, what right has the UN to interfere with the presentation of passports in member countries.
It IS within the UN mandate. It is an international issue - it crosses national borders. I'm suprised that the Delegate for Tir Dannan fails to understand this.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

What we would like to see is some basic information as to the individual's name, nationality and diplomatic (or other) status presented in a common language and in a standard script.

The government of Tragomaschalia welcomes this clarification.

In all honestly Ladies and Gentlemen, what right has the UN to interfere with the presentation of passports in member countries.
It IS within the UN mandate. It is an international issue - it crosses national borders. I'm suprised that the Delegate for Tir Dannan fails to understand this.


The issue is one in which the UN should have no say. The presentation of passports is an issue of little importance to the UN and as a member I object to the interference. The soviergn right of a country to present their national documents as they see fit is one which should be preserved.
By passing this mandate the UN is not only centralising power but also preventing countries from exercising their rights. If a nation wishes to make their passports more accessible to customs/immigration officers etc... that is their business. Let a group of nation agree this together.
The next step on this road is the UN telling nations which languages they should publish their documents in, what colour passports to have, and on which days of the year to take holidays. This is a ridiculous and potentially dangerous proposal, and one which Tir Dannan urges to be rejected.
Finally I would like to ask the Delegate from Hirota if they would be willing to have the UN cite another nation for failing to "Harmonise" their passports. Would Hirota be willing for the name of an otherwise moral and good nation to be sullied over the appearance of their passports?

Well by passing this resolution it should make it easier to track down terrorists. By having the UN adapt this resolution, you can simply match up the suspect's info (all neatly on ONE piece of ID) with your intelligence.

The next step on this road is the UN telling nations which languages they should publish their documents in, what colour passports to have, and on which days of the year to take holidays. This is a ridiculous and potentially dangerous proposal, and one which Tir Dannan urges to be rejected.
Finally I would like to ask the Delegate from Hirota if they would be willing to have the UN cite another nation for failing to "Harmonise" their passports. Would Hirota be willing for the name of an otherwise moral and good nation to be sullied over the appearance of their passports?

We of the Grand Atoll would strenuously oppose any attempt to interfere with matters within the borders of any single nation. But this proposal is specifically crafted not to interfere with the distinctives of UN member nations. It will only improve travel between UN member nations.

To impose requirements on passport color or authorized travel days or anything else of a purely internal nature would require a separate resolution, which all rational states would oppose.

This proposal is not the best in spelling or grammar, but we have heard no compelling reason to discard it.

If someone were to present a similar proposal with better wording, and - apparently - more clear guarantees of national sovereignty, we would support that one instead.

After reading the proposal carefully and listening to the debate, I have come to the conclusion that this proposal is not viable in its current form. Due to the lack of specific guidelines concerning what information would be included, to pass it in its current form would be meaningless, as another resolution would need to be drafted in order to define the regulations put forth in this one! While I see the value of standardizing such things as security features and basic information, I will not approve the creation of useless paperwork. Perhaps, if this proposal were redrafted and submitted again, I would support it, but only if it included the following:

1. Clear guidlines as to what features of passports will be standardized

2. The promise of U.N. funding to help implement this program

3. A solution which also includes the passports of those nations who have not joined the U.N.

Until such a rewritten proposal can be presented, Rabenswald will vote Against.

Lukas von Rabenswald,
Delegate to the United Nations

1. Clear guidlines as to what features of passports will be standardized

2. The promise of U.N. funding to help implement this program

3. A solution which also includes the passports of those nations who have not joined the U.N.

Tragomaschalia agrees with your point #1, questions whether we have sufficient information to cost #2, and regretfully points out that #3, no matter how desirable, would be ultra vires in that we have no power to legislate on behalf of non-members. We would of course hope that the obvious utility of such a standard would impel, rather than compel, non-member nations to adopt it.

My third point was to highlight the general unwieldiness of the passport proposal in general; even if the U.N issued its own passports which were identical in every way, there would still be the same problem at every border whenever a non-UN nation's passport appeared.

Myouth votes against this proposal, seeing no positives and being unwilling to redesign and issue passports everytime a new essential piece of information is added to the list.

Once accepted modifications to the required information will become the juresdiction of some sub-committee, and will be driven by current fashion.

Vote NO.

The democratic states of Hirota have voted in support of this measure, simply because we fail to see any negatives to approving this pending resolution.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

Myouth votes against this proposal, seeing no positives and being unwilling to redesign and issue passports everytime a new essential piece of information is added to the list.

Once accepted modifications to the required information will become the juresdiction of some sub-committee, and will be driven by current fashion.

Vote NO.

Some argue there is no reason to pass this Resolution, but there is no reason not to pass it either. It has no negatives whatsoever, and clears the possible confusion of information on passports.

clears the possible confusion of information on passports.

How? Explain your logic, sir.

We've been extremely successful with maximizing our security by requiring all persons entering our nation to register their nipple prints with us. Of course, all residents of our nation must also have on file their nipple prints. Well, perhaps this will encourage us to accelerate our computerized printing system. We have been getting some complaints about ink smudges.

We will not have internal affairs dictated to us by anyone. This is a ridiculous proposition. We are a free state with free peoples with a right to do as we please as long as we don;t infringe others' rights.